Post by cjm on Nov 9, 2018 7:24:10 GMT

First, a general observation. In any criminal case – and especially in a high-profile murder trial where those accused know they will be spending the rest of their lives in jail, should they be convicted – there is obviously a great deal of punishment involved just in the process. The toll this takes on the accused is obviously further exacerbated if they are both elderly and ailing. As a result, in properly functioning and humane legal systems, prosecutions are only brought where there is compelling prima facie evidence of guilt. In other words, the “probably innocent” are never put on trial, not even for the most heinous crimes, for which the public are crying out for a show of retribution.

The fact that I am considered an adult is both terrifying and hillarious

Post by cjm on Mar 26, 2019 8:02:27 GMT

[1] Telephone calls on March 22 to the attorneys of record on the “heads,” Mkhonto & Ngwenya, Pretoria, were not answered; and attempts to find someone aware of the matter and willing to discuss it, at the LSSA, also on March 22, were similarly unsuccessful.

Post by cjm on May 30, 2019 17:23:59 GMT

Even on the face of it, the autopsy report does not support Professor Naidoo’s interpretation. First, it would not be possible for all surface injuries on the body, excluding the head, to be pre-a-35-meter-fall injuries. Second, the autopsy report itself provides a schedule of the histological sections taken from the body. None of the sections taken from inside the body, including from the brain and hyoid bone, showed any healing reaction. There were seventeen skin sections taken (labelled from A to Q). The report notes that in several cases the bruises are “fresh”. So, in other words, there was no healing reaction detected.

The histological evidence, read properly, also contradicts the narrative account that the team presented to the second inquest, which was accepted by Judge Mothle, and which now forms the basis of Rodrigues’ prosecution. If for instance Timol’s ankle had been dislocated on the Monday it would have soon become massively swollen. The pathologists at the autopsy would have seen that it was an old injury, and this would have been confirmed by the histological analysis. It was clearly regarded as fresh injury however, and so not even discussed at the first inquest.This injury was also regarded as consistent with the fall, at the time. As the RDM report on Schepers’ testimony stated: “The left groin was bruised and the left ankle was strained, probably by hitting the right leg. Large bruises on the front of the right lower leg were probably also caused when the left foot hit against the right leg during the fall.” (Timol’s right shoe was knocked off by the impact.)

The fact that I am considered an adult is both terrifying and hillarious

Post by cjm on Jun 4, 2019 8:23:33 GMT

The kernel of the issue in the stay of prosecution matter is, or should be, whether it is possible or not for Rodrigues to have a fair trial – almost half a century after the murder was allegedly committed – as is his constitutional right.

This question should be approached based on the facts of the State’s case alone; for, to be polite, the State’s case is demonstrably iffy.

The fact that I am considered an adult is both terrifying and hillarious

Post by cjm on Jun 6, 2020 9:47:06 GMT

...Cajee writes, regarding the second inquest, that: “I was particularly optimistic that Rodrigues would have had second thoughts about the evidence he had given to the 1972 inquest that my uncle had showed no signs of having been assaulted.”

But, as we know, Rodrigues did not change his version of events – though he could have done so with minimal repercussion. In fact, he’d have probably been hailed as someone who’d finally had the guts to come clean.

In short, what Cajee fails to deal with in his book is simply this: what if Rodrigues is indeed telling the truth? What then?

The fact that I am considered an adult is both terrifying and hillarious